SELECT JUST ONE TOPIC!
Please see the syllabus for my policy on academic dishonesty. If you plagiarize, you will not have another chance to rewrite the paper. You will receive a zero and I will enter your name into our institutional tracking system. Period.
These assignments are meant to be self-contained. Each assignment tells student which readings they may use. No external assistance is permitted.
1. Read the following selection from a paper by Ray Prebble. Identify his primary argument and present it. What does this argument seek to show us about relativism? More specifically, what is the first ‘trap’ into which he thinks relativists fall? Look at the James Rachels reading on relativism. Would Rachels agree that Prebble is right about the ‘trap’ or relativism? Would Rachels agree with the fundamental argument that Prebble offers here.
Besides the basic course concepts in chapter 1, students may employ only James Rachels, Ray Prebble, and perhaps the stuff from Justin McBrayer.
Prebble selection:
Are You A Garbled Relativist?
Ray Prebble
Are you a relativist? A relativist is someone who says things like “There are many truths, many ways of seeing things.” Compare this with the non-relativist, or absolutist, who says, “This is how things are, and there are no two ways about it.” What’s your reaction to these opposing viewpoints? If the relativist sounds decent, non-judgemental, and understanding – someone you feel a connection with – whereas the absolutist sounds biased, unforgiving, and unthinking – someone you would avoid – then you are just the audience I’m aiming at.
Of course one can unproblematically be a relativist about taste in art, or in gardening, or anything involving only purely subjective evaluations. But the philosophically interesting kind of relativism is cultural relativism, also known as (or is at least a substantial subdivision of) moral relativism. (From now on in this article, ‘relativists’ will refer specifically to moral relativists.) The fact that different cultures do things differently is still unproblematic if you’re deciding where to have dinner; but accepting the differences can get tricky when you’re making decisions about moral issues. How ought one to think and act when cultures clash morally or moral systems collide? Whose rules should be followed; yours or theirs? How can we decide? What should a nice relativist do?
These questions are more pertinent today than ever. Decent people from modern Westernised cultures often talk about the requirement to tolerate and respect people from other cultures. But you need to be careful that you don’t fall into one or more of the traps which start to open once you start putting meat on the bones of this relativist framework.
Here’s a quick tour around the trap line.
Let’s begin by looking at the idea that if morality is relative to cultures – if one is enculturated into one’s moral beliefs, and there is nothing more to morality than that − then there is no way of choosing between moral systems, and one ought therefore to respect the moral decisions of other cultures. To put it another way, the idea is one ought not to pass moral judgements on the moral judgements of other cultures, or the actions of people from other cultures.
This is a very interesting argument, because it is both beguilingly plausible and utterly invalid. The problem is that relativists’ moral statements, such as “One ought not to pass moral judgements on the actions of people from other cultures” are not remotely relative; they are absolute. They are meant to apply as a moral rule to all individuals in all cultures. So, ironically, the central catch-cry of many moral relativists is a thoroughly absolutist moral statement, the very possibility of which their own theory denies.
At best, statements about not passing judgement on other cultures can coherently function as representing a moral decision in one’s own culture (if for a moment we pretend there is such a thing as all the members of a culture having the same moral beliefs). In other words, you and the other members of your culture might believe such statements to be true; but according to that very statement of belief, a member of another culture has the right to say, “Well, moral relativism is what you believe in your culture; but in my culture we don’t believe that one ought not to pass moral judgements on the people from other cultures. We feel perfectly free to cast moral judgements on whomever we like, including you and your culture.” You may have experienced this very retort.
Further considering the statement by the relativist, “You ought to be tolerant of others’ moral beliefs” – what then of the moral belief that one ought not be tolerant of others’ moral beliefs? Ought one to tolerate this moral belief? Ought one to tolerate intolerance? Of course the relativist should (supposing of course that they want to be consistent) because it is a moral belief; and once you accept that you ought to be tolerant of others’ moral beliefs, then you are obliged to tolerate others’ intolerance – in the name of absolute toleration!
Cite all the texts you employ. This is at 4 to 5 page paper, though
you may certainly write more. In offering your own judgment and
defense, use course concepts.
2. Suppose that Jeremy Bentham were considering whether adoption were permissible. What would he say that we need to consider in determining the permissibility of adoption? What would count in favor of a particular adoption and what would count against it? Given what Bentham would say there, could there be similar reasons for preventing someone raising their own children? What might they be, in Bentham’s view?
Besides the text on basic concepts and the chapter on utilitarianism, students may employ chapter 4 under the page “Consequentialism Introduction” in Canvas. This page contains a link to Bentham’s “Principles of Morals and Legislation.”
Cite all the texts you employ. This is a 4 to 5 page paper, though you
may certainly write more. In offering your own judgment and defense,
use course concepts.
Grading Rubric 1. Does this paper identify have a clear thesis? (5%)
2. Does this paper contain only relevant information? Are the
citations completed properly? (5%) 3. Does the paper attribute the
correct view to the philosophers in question? (10%) 4. Is/are the
philosopher’s view presented with the appropriate level of detail?
(For example, does the author explain concepts and arguments in a
tight manner, or are the arguments and concepts merely sketched?)
(25%) 5. Does the author present a clear argument in his/her
discussion? (15%) 6. Does the paper cohere? Or, is the paper a
hodgepodge of disparate ideas? (10%) 7. Does the conclusion tie
together the different phases of the paper? Or, is the conclusion a
non-sequitur? (5%) 8. Are the spelling, grammar and syntax on the
college level? (5%) 9. Does the author make appropriate and accurate
use of course concepts in constructing his or her discussion? (20%)
Intangibles: Is the paper on the assigned topic? Is it the author’s
own work?
